Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Sundaram Asset Management Company ... vs Dcit, Ltu-1, Chennai on 2 January, 2020
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH: CHENNAI
श्री जॉजज माथन, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं
श्री इं टूरी रामा राव, ले खा सदस्य एवं
BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.338/Chny/2018
धनिाज रण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2005-06
M/s. Sundaram Asset Management The Deputy Commissioner of
Company Limited, Income Tax
[Formerly Sundaram BNP Paribas Asset Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit-1,
Management Co., Ltd.,] Aayakar Bhawan,
Sundaram Towers, II Floor, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
No.46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 034
Chennai - 600 034.
[PAN: AAICS 4257J]
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.354/Chny/2018
धनिाज रण वर्ज /Assessment Year: 2005-06
The Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s. Sundaram Asset
Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit-1, Management Company Limited,
Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Parry House, VI Floor,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, No.43, Moore Street,
Chennai - 600 034 Chennai - 600 001.
[PAN: AAICS 4257J]
(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)
अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. Bharathi Krishnaprasad, CA
प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. A. Sundararajan, Addl.CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.01.2020
घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020
ITA No.338/Chny/2018 &
ITA. No.354/Chny/2018
:- 2 -:
आदे श / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
ITA No.338/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the assessee and ITA
No.354/Chny/2018 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai in ITA No.21/2010-11/LTU(A)-17 dated 02.11.2017 for the Assessment Year 2005-06.
2. Ms. Bharathi Krishnaprasad, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr. A. Sundararajan, Additional CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.
3. At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed that the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.354/Chny/2018 was below the tax effect. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax effect.
4. In respect of the assessee's appeal in ITA No.338/Chny/2018, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that she did not want to press Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in respect of the issue of reopening and Ground No.5 which was the alternative prayer in respect of the claim of deduction representing the incentives paid to the ITA No.338/Chny/2018 & ITA. No.354/Chny/2018 :- 3 -:
employees. Consequently, Ground Nos. 1, 2 3 and 5 of the assessee's appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Authorized Representative has made endorsement to this effect. In respect of Ground No.4, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issue was against the action of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs.30,80,000/- representing the incentives paid to the employees by considering the same as prior period expenditure. It was a submission that the said expenditure was the actual incentive paid to the employees during the relevant assessment year. It was a submission that this was performance incentives which had been paid during the relevant assessment year. It was a prayer that the said expenditure may be directed to be allowed as the same are not prior period expenditure.
5. In reply, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that he had no objection if the issue was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination as to whether the said amounts have been paid during the year. It was a submission that if the amounts have been paid during the year, he had no objection if the same was allowed to the assessee subject to verification.
ITA No.338/Chny/2018 &ITA. No.354/Chny/2018
:- 4 -:
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
7. It has been claimed by the assessee that the said expenditure representing the performance incentives to the employees are not prior period expenditure. It has also been claimed by the assessee that the said expenditure has been paid during the year. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification as to whether the said amounts in the form of performance incentives have been paid to the employees during the relevant assessment year. If the amounts have been paid during the relevant assessment year, then the same is liable to be allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.338/Chny/2018 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.354/Chny/2018 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd January, 2020 in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(इं टूरी रामा राव) (जॉजज माथन)
(INTURI RAMA RAO) (GEORGE MATHAN)
लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
चेन्नई/Chennai,
धदनां क/Dated: 2nd January, 2020
IA, Sr. PS
आदे श की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधर्त/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधि/DR 6. गार्ज फाईल/GF ITA No.338/Chny/2018 & ITA. No.354/Chny/2018 :- 5 -: